By Nate Raymond
(Reuters) – A federal judge on Friday blocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration from disfavoring arts organizations deemed to be promoting “gender ideology” when deciding which ones should receive grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.
U.S. District Judge William Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that a policy the NEA adopted to implement an executive order Trump signed was unlawful and violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
Smith, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said the policy improperly restricts artists’ speech because it “assigns negative weight to the expression of certain ideas on the issue of gender identity.”
The NEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling came in a lawsuit four arts and theater organizations represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed in March after the NEA required grant applicants to certify they would not promote “gender ideology.”
The NEA adopted that criteria in accordance with an executive order the Republican president signed upon returning for his second term in office on January 20 that directed the government to recognize only two sexes – male and female – and required agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote what he dubbed “gender ideology.”
The plaintiffs said the NEA’s policy would force them to self-censor to obtain funding and alter the scope of artistic projects that involve transgender characters or LGBTQ actors.
After the lawsuit was filed, the NEA rescinded its initial policy on “gender ideology” and announced it would re-implement Trump’s executive order through a new one that it adopted on April 30.
Under the new policy, the NEA’s chair would assess grant applications “for artistic excellence and merit, including whether the proposed project promotes gender ideology,” on a “case-by-case” basis.
While a project deemed to promote “gender ideology” would not be denied funding solely on that basis, that determination could weigh against whether it receives final approval, the administration said.
Smith had in an earlier opinion concluded that the NEA’s initial policy likely was unconstitutional. In Friday’s ruling, he said its latest effort fared no better as it constituted an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on private speech.
He said the NEA also lacked authority to adopt the policy as the agency’s governing statute did not empower its chair to categorically disfavor applications for promoting certain views.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Aurora Ellis)
Comments